Laserfiche WebLink
5' <br />; ' <br />; V <br />Or." <br />K.- <br />0V', .I-' <br />r-n.'-'.*,.. <br />V-':. <br />S'' . <br />■>.;’V:T <br />■ ' I- <br />8S-' <br />fs*-. »'V , <br />■*o'. <br />L yiAi <br />—> Pimfe" <br />•; . ,9'^ <br />ri-?-" <br />«5'K" <br />Ife V’ <br />0;r/:«;.' ■ <br />i*.''r.v ■ <br />f ■■ ■ <br />t?^ ■ <br />'<>' <br />ML:f: <br />S{!^-- <br />Greenwood - No one was aware of any definite progress. L.; . <br />Howard Bennis mentioned that the>' use he same consulting <br />engineer (Bill Englehart) as Deephaven and. since Bill s <br />working on developing shoreland provisions for Deephav’en. r.e <br />may also be doing something for Greenwood. <br />Wayzata - Pick reported that their consultant sub.mitted a <br />package to DNR a couple months ago for tial review and <br />comment. but that DNR has not yet responded. Ed mentioned <br />that the package proposes a trace-off approach tu impervious <br />limits and includes lower than allowea limits in some areas <br />and a stormwater management nlan in e.\’change for approving <br />higher limits (up to 100% coverage in the duwntowni in other <br />areas. Greg Withers quer loned why D.NR is reviewing the <br />package and the TRC has not >3t seen it. Pick responded <br />that the package has been submitted by Wayzata’s consultant, <br />not officially by the City. for comments from DNR. prior <br />+0 the City taking it to hearings. Mark Koegler mentioned <br />that he intends to seek similar preliminary" comments from <br />DNR regarding a draft for Mound before presenting It to th** <br />TRC on behalf of the City. Ed assured the TRC that it will <br />still need to be officially submitted to DNR by the City and <br />that the other cities. through the TRC, will have an <br />opportunity to revie*' -''iid comment on it. <br />Gene itromraen obsc *'ed that time is slipping by and that he <br />feels the TRC should consider defining a process and <br />schedule for the cities to submit their plans. He cr.utioned <br />the members that perhaps too many issues remain yet to be <br />resolved, while time is winding down. <br />Ann Perry commented that she sees three mam issues facing <br />the TRC: (1) Impervious limits / stormwater mgmt. (2) <br />Shoreland area / 1000 feet, and (3) Height limits. <br />Nick Duff said he feels the cities should limit their <br />presentations to the TRC to just the issues for which they <br />are seeking flexibility to keep the job manageable in the <br />time remaining. <br />Mi letrista - They have compared their existing code with <br />the DNR regs. and have had several discussions with Ceil <br />Strauss. The City has one problem area with existing, small <br />lots and also anticipates requesting flexibility on height. <br />They inteno to have a draft ready by sum.ier. <br />Woodland — The whole City will be treated as shoreland. <br />They have their attorney developing a draft and expect to <br />have it ready for presentation to the TRC in April or May.